I was going to write a point-by-point response to this: The New Epistemic Deal | Two-Phase Cosmology But any given point looked pretty heavy on its own, so I decided to launch the threads one at time.
This one is on point 1: "Ecocivilisation is our shared destiny and guiding goal."
Is? Or should be? AFAIK, there are bunch of people not caring much about any teleology at all (beyond what suits them in the moment). Beyond that, conversation tends to derail into some apocalypse or another, with some messianic figure or another, the net effect of which is to justify non-action or dubious action in the current moment, short-circuiting serious analysis in the name of belief.
The best futures thinking I have seen comes from students of deep history and/or talented science fiction writers. It’s really, really hard, however, to carry on a conversation about the long term without derailing into catastrophism or naive mythologization. It’s almost like Kant knew what he was talking about when he suggested that forms of thought condition the contents of thought!
I see Gebser as fleshing out this Kantian insight with his “structures of consciousness” model. To care about “ecocivilization” over the long haul requires a consciousness that can support masses of data without collapsing in upon itself. It likewise need to grasp both structure and contingency, which is easier said than done, because people who do well at structure tend to fall too much in love with it, and people with a feel for contingency tend not to invest much in structure at all.
The attitude I am suggesting is needed is rather like this: This Japanese Shrine Has Been Torn Down And Rebuilt Every 20 Years for the Past Millennium **
**
